Fixing the Army’s Broken Culture

Leave a comment

Military elements often retain a degree of tradition, sometimes to their detriment and well past any meaningful use. Examples include the foolish and ineffective approach that initial entry training (“basic”) continues to be conducted and long-obsolete and useless holdovers such as drill and ceremony. I’ll begrudge an exception to D&C for personnel formally directed to conduct a tattoo while also pointing out the general fraud, waste, and abuse of such pompous displays.

Things like this are continued under the false guise instilling discipline and learning how to pay attention to detail despite no evidence that they accomplish either.

Forward-thinking leaders have commented on the need to break obsolete and detrimental traditions, even directing that future leaders must be able to function under disciplined disobedience.

Here are some examples:

https://soflete.com/blogs/knowledge/surfers-hippies-hipsters-and-snowflakes-counterculture-in-sof

https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/six-ways-to-fix-the-armys-culture/

https://www.army.mil/article/187293/future_warfare_requires_disciplined_disobedience_army_chief_says

https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/three-things-the-army-chief-of-staff-wants-you-to-know/

What has the Army response to this been? As expected of the illiterate majority, more of the same failed nonsense.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/24/army-making-more-drill-sergeants-increase-discipline-ait.html

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/11/28/its-official-the-army-is-bringing-drill-sergeants-back-to-ait/

Advertisements

Army Combat Readiness Test complaints

Leave a comment

Here is all you need to understand about the Army’s new ACRT: Motivated and intelligent personnel that know how to train effectively will continue to get very good scores, just as before. Malingerers will complain and do poorly or fail, just as before.

Consider what the test is asking personnel to do. Here are the proposed standards as of July 31 2018: July 2018 proposed standards
More

Lies of Gurus

3 Comments

What happens when a skilled competitor used to achieving measurable results in organized competition is held up against widely-accepted tactical gurus that aren’t normally tested?


Kiai Master (black karategi with red belt) offers a 5,000 dollar challenge that he can beat any MMA competitor.


MMA competitor Xu Xiaodong (black shirt and shorts) demonstrates his competition approach a "thunder style" martial arts master.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/world/asia/mma-martial-arts-china-tai-chi.html?referer=android-app://m.facebook.com

Interesting, Xu Xiaodong (the MMA competitor in the second video decisively winning this challenge against the “thunder style” martial arts master) has been lambasted for his victory because it “violates the morals of martial arts.”

Based on observing and participating in the range activity of tens of thousands of military personnel and comparing that to the range activity (training and competition) of competition shooters over the decades, there are direct parallels.

What the gamer does is not real, even though he actually does it.
What the tactician does is real, even though he likely has never done it.

And should the gamer beat the tactician (who allegedly operates where there are no rules) it’s an “outrage” for “violating morals.”

Wake Up Call

6 Comments

This won’t make me any friends, but I’ll say it anyway. I’ll defer to George Patton’s wisdom and have at it. More

Tactical Training Is Silly

2 Comments

How often in a real fight are any of the popularly-espoused, school-taught tactics employed? Review various fights caught on video and note how often the solution was (or ideally would have been) to present a firearm and land quick hits with the only additional necessary tactic being a little bob and weave.

Some examples:

From a vehicle:

At a store:

IPSC shooter working security:

https://firearmusernetwork.com/ipsc-shooter-wins-fight/

At another store:

https://gfycat.com/SillyEnormousIntermediateegret

http://www.speroforum.com/a/LRELBDEMBV42/79760-Video-armed-robbers-choose-wrong-gunshop-with-devastating-results

Police officer:

https://firearmusernetwork.com/new-russian-army-pistol/

In front of an elevator:
https://video-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-2/15278144_560280984162570_7771793311236358144_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&oh=ca052e5e24918831f8f88b001535a94b&oe=583B2071

While not common, shootings do happen to good people sometimes. When they do, those people often have zero formal tactical instruction from popular classes.

The successful ones respond simply: Draw and land hits as quickly as possible, usually with little else needed. You’d be hard pressed to find a video of a successful defensive shooting where the defender used any of the techniques popularly taught at various schools.

Many of the most feared gunfighters of the 20th century used tactics and techniques that would be considered passé today. A surprisingly large number of them were involved in competition emphasizing static slow fire (Bullseye, PPC, etc.) that doesn’t test the timed movement, gun handling, and rapid-fire shooting on multiple targets found in practical competition. But they fought successfully many times. If they were still in service and in their prime, they’d probably fight quite well today as well.

Tactically Inconsistent

4 Comments

Tiger McKee believes that practicing a malfunction/stoppage response must be done enough so that “getting the weapon running again, must be immediate.”

For example, when you press the trigger in real life – live fire practice and especially during a confrontation – and you get a click instead of a bang it means you have a malfunction. The response to this, clearing the stoppage and getting the weapon running again, must be immediate. In a fight time is a precious commodity. There is no time to stop, think or assess the problem and then correct it.

– Tiger McKee

In videos discussing his approach on “advanced skills”, Pincus states today’s guns are so reliable that skills required to clear malfunctions are among these and do not need to be emphasized or practiced regularly. He goes on to say that if one’s gun malfunctions, one should simply change the gun.

Malfunctions are not a fundamental defensive shooting skill…. Clearing a malfunction is an ‘advanced skill’.”

– Rob Pincus

Once again, two popular defensive shooting instructors (neither one with actual fight experience) have completely opposite approaches on a defensive shooting issue.

Where facts are few, experts are many.

– Donald R. Gannon

Gunfight Rules

Leave a comment

“There ain’t no rules in a gunfight!”

That is a popular lead-in from low-level novice shooters justifying why they cower from competitive shooting. As with their other excuses, this one is also plain wrong. Yes, there are rules in a gunfight.

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are rules or directives to military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE are lawful commands. Rules of Engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

The current Law of Land Warfare has also been with us for over a century.

A list of the treaties relating to the conduct of land warfare which have been ratified by the United States, with the abbreviated titles used in this Manual, is set forth in the abbreviations section of this manual. The official English texts or a translation of the principal treaty provisions are quoted verbatim in bold type in the relevant paragraphs throughout the Manual. It should be noted, however, that the official text of the Hague Conventions of 18 October 1907 is the French text which must be accepted as controlling in the event of a dispute as to the meaning of any provision of these particular conventions.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf

These types of gunfight rules also apply to law enforcement and other civilian encounters.

A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officers and civilians with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. In some ways, it is similar to the U.S. military’s escalation of force (EOF). The purpose of these models is to clarify, both for law enforcement officers and civilians, the complex subject of use of force. They are often central parts of law enforcement agencies’ use of force policies.

Oh, and I hear tactical timmy in the back scoffing. There are always the laws of physics at hand as well. Despite the various lies you may soothe your ego with, the physical laws at play to get a launched projectile to impact a given target on purpose in a timely manner apply identically on the range as they do in the field.

I guess there are rules in a gunfight afterall!

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: